Thursdays at the Huffington Post, Rana Florida, CEO of The Creative Class Group, shares her conversations with successful entrepreneurs and thought leaders about how they manage their businesses, their relationships, their careers, and more. She also answers readers' questions about how they can optimize their lives. Send your questions about work, life, or relationships to rana@creativeclass.com
Hi Rana,
I have two key employees who have been with me for three years, both performing at a C+. The business is gaining momentum and I am busier than ever. I've been giving them raises and bonuses and more responsibility, but they want additional raises. I am conflicted as I have to micromanage all their work, check everything over, and even the simplest of client emails and proposals are laden with unacceptable mistakes and typos.
Moreover, every time I give them an assignment that's outside their normal duties, there is tremendous push-back and hand-holding. I've given them feedback about what I need them to do and they both agree that they could be doing better and change for a brief period, but then they quickly resort back to their old lazy ways. I'd love to replace them, but they are both crucial positions and I just don't have the time to search for and train replacements. Should I fire them and suffer trying to find someone better or do I keep jogging along at a C average? I also feel personally bad for their families and livelihoods.
Alana
Washington, DC
Photo credit: Flickr user valleyhq
Hi Alana,
A long time ago, I asked the same question to a respected businessperson: "When do you fire someone?" Their answer was, "When you first think of it." The point is that an employee has either got it or they don't. Some people are go-getters who will always go the extra mile. Others will just skate by. It's in a person's DNA.
Firings are almost always warranted in cases of theft or drug and alcohol abuse, but lack of production can be a legitimate cause for termination too. It's plain and simple: not meeting your work obligations poses a serious threat to your job. It's very stressful to let someone go, but you hired your team because you saw promise in them. If they are not completing their work, or if they are sucking up your time while you babysit them, they are useless to you.
I once asked another successful entrepreneur that same question, and their answer was the opposite: "first, you need players on the field." Meaning, don't leave yourself exposed to the competition without a team in place. Whenever you meet great talent, start grooming them to join the company in any capacity. Players can then be shifted and traded.
As for these two, you said you've given them feedback time and again but see no improvements in their performance. I think it's important to let them know that they are getting one last chance. Sit down with each of them and tell them what they are doing right -- positive reinforcement is crucial to motivate a team. Then be specific about what you need improved.
Let them know that if their performance dramatically improves in six months, you will give them a raise. But if it stays the same or gets worse, you will have to replace them. Make it clear that your preference would be to keep them, and you will do what you can to help them succeed.
If you see some improvement but not enough at the end of the six months, sit down with them again and extend the review period by three months. If nothing has changed, it is time for them to go.
While most companies will offer one to two weeks of severance pay per year served, or one month per year in some cases for senior level positions, I would advise you to relieve your conscience by sending them on their way with a three to six month severance package.
Follow Rana Florida on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ranaflorida
Rana Florida: Your Start-Up Life: Tory Burch on Making Fashion Her Business
Message me on twitter @AntJackson. If it's a role I can help recruit for I'll source someone for free for you in my spare time.
What have you got to lose?
I've found and headhunted literally hundreds of people in the past, maybe I can help you out.
1) Perhaps you don't need to fire these people, just apply the Peter-Principle and demote them back to a position that they are able to manage.
OR re-assign their duties to others who have the necessary can-do attitude and devotion to detail necessary.
2) It would appear that you may have brought this on yourself, by handing out promotions/pay-raises when you, yourself, didn't feel that their work product actually warranted it.
3) The notion that any manager is TOO BUSY to search for necessary talent is almost always misguided. It is much better to be doing this on an unhurried background basis, than to possibly find yourself having to do so on a rush basis, at a time, and place, not of your own choosing.
4) Ralph Nader once said: "The function of leadership is to create more leaders, not more followers."
I don't know your organization, so this may not be appropriate:
1) if this is an ongoing problem as you suggest, then you've been sending mixed signals about their performance by giving them raises/promotions while their work product hasn't actually warranted them.
2) If appropriate, reassign duties to other people who have the correct can-do spirit, and sideline these folks until they either improve their performance, or seek greener pastures elsewhere.
3) The notion that you don't HAVE TIME, to find replacements is ALMOST ALWAYS, misguided.
VERY FEW PEOPLE have such valuable talent, that they cannot be replaced.
AND IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS better to do the replacing at a time of your choosing, rather than whenever it may become unavoidable.
4) Ralph Nader once said: "The function of leadership is create more leaders, not more followers"
MORE THAN LIKELY, there are a wide abundance of people willing to step up and run with the ball.
When they follow up by launching a Bank Fraud Task Force with a pitifully inadequate staff of only 10 FBI agents, followed by a refusal to ask the Attorney General to recuse himself due to possible conflict of interest regarding megabanks, followed by rubber-stamping a bill like the JOBS Act (a.k.a. "Funds for Fraudsters"), then it is definitely time to find someone who is more willing and able to represent the 99% and more willing and able to push back against the 1% agenda when necessary.
Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party have a very dynamic progressive platform to restore the prosperity and defend the liberty of the 99%. Here are a few highlights:
Restore the Glass-Steagall firewall
Medicare for all health plan
Student loan debt forgiveness
10-point Voter Bill of Rights
Repeal those parts of NDAA which violate our civil liberties
If you like these solutions, please help spread the word.
www.jillstein.org
I used to explain that I cared about the employee as a person and would like to be able to keep them, but simply wasn't going to be able to unless they were able to turn things around. If they weren't, I explained sadly, I'd have to replace them with someone who COULD do the job, and I hoped they'd be able to find a job that better suited their capabilities.
There is an adage from the military: "There are no bad sailors ( soldiers), just bad leaders." This applies most in times of crisis.
Involve your C employee in the recruitment process have them screen resumes, do phone interviews, etc., implying they will be the supervisor. Not!
When the perfect new employee is onboard, have them train the new person.
Then, when everything is in place, instruct the new hire to downsize their "boss".
Easy peasy. You Canadians are too darn nice.
No wonder the US economy is doing so much better
Oh, wait, the US economy is doing a lot worse than Canada, and our health care system is just plain dumb.
It happened to me in a biotech startup where I was a Director of Bioinformatics---except I wasn't a C employee.
But it backfired---the VP who attempted to mug me was so clueless he tried to push my bioinformatics work as a cash cow, due to his total lack of understanding of the human genome.
He got canned, I survived until the next totally FUBAR management situation.
I could go on and on.
I'm not complaining. I finally had to sue to get my stock options. I can't disclose the amount of the settlement, but I tipped my lawyer $5,000.
You do tip lawyers in Canada, don't you?